We play both versions of Red Dead Redemption for an hour, and give our quick …

Share this story

Our review copies of Red Dead Redemption have arrived, which means it's time to get to work on some coverage. Rockstar sent both a PS3 and a 360 version of the game, and many people are wondering which version to get, so we thought we'd do a quick comparison.

This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!

Why did we decide to write this post for this particular game? It's rare we get sent both copies of a game, and there has been some discussion about which one to get. Let us know if this is something you're interested in seeing in the future, and we'll try to provide more of it when we can.

Ars writers are Xbox fanbois. Fanbois don't provide evidence, they just write tr0ll articles: "OMG, MS is better than sony!!!!!!!!!!!! PS3 version of game is teh sux0rs, get XBOX version !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!1111

Ars writers are Xbox fanbois. Fanbois don't provide evidence, they just write tr0ll articles: "OMG, MS is better than sony!!!!!!!!!!!! PS3 version of game is teh sux0rs, get XBOX version !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!1111

To respond to the last statement, this is certainly the type of thing I'd like to see in the future. It might not have helped completely in this case (since I ordered it for the 360 yesterday), but I dug around for comparisons before which version I decided to purchase. I appreciate Ars' opinion on this type of thing.

Generally I take Ars writers at their word for many things, but with this, I am disappointed."We didn't want to take the time."

It's a matter of taking the time, buying the equipment, setting it up, grabbing video, editing video, and having the same people argue about the techniques used to do the above. So no, it's not worth it.

In this case people were asking about the differences, we played the game and explained the differences. If you'd like to take that as bias, that's fine.

I'm assuming there is no PC version in the works? I loved Halo and Resistance, but suck massively with controllers.... mouse, baby! Mouse!

-Pie

two minutes before your post

as for the issue of screen shots, i can see both sides of the issue.from a consumer stand point, if there are screenshots, then i can come to my own conclusions, but from a publisher's stand point, i can definitely see the pain points of obtaining said screen shots. easiest way, might be with that hauppage hd capture box, but i don't think it has hdmi input (not sure on that), but if it doesn't it certainly can't do anything protected by HDCP. although, i don't think that is common for games, at this point.

I've got the 360 version coming today. I get all multi-platform games on the 360. Even if the PS3 version is said to be better. Xbox Live trumps all in my household. That includes my achievement obsession. :-)

I'm going to assume this means the games built around the 360 and the ported to PS3? This seems to be the case when this happens. Doesn't really matter to me ( I own a PS3 ). I just want to play it. As long as the gameplay is the same, life is good.

My PS3 copy will be here any minute. I do own both consoles, but always go PS3 in multiplat games for the free PSN. In any case, this is somewhat disappointing. Rockstar is one of the top devs out there. If they're still having trouble coding for the PS3, there is something seriously wrong.

Thanks for the quick update. Often one has to wait till Digital Foundry does their full Face-Off before getting feedback like this. (For those wanting captures and screenshots, that's where to find them (http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?pl ... e=face-off) .... but they often come out weeks or months after the release....)

Generally I take Ars writers at their word for many things, but with this, I am disappointed."We didn't want to take the time."

It's a matter of taking the time, buying the equipment, setting it up, grabbing video, editing video, and having the same people argue about the techniques used to do the above. So no, it's not worth it.

In this case people were asking about the differences, we played the game and explained the differences. If you'd like to take that as bias, that's fine.

I for one appreciated the comparison, although I'm disappointed there is no pc version as that is what I'm doing most of my gaming on nowadays. Looks like I'll pick it up for my 360!

Also, just to make it clear for the console trolls (who the hell cares what you play it on, its a personal choice), this wasn't meant as an indepth comparison piece like you'll get from gametrailers and the like, but a quick bloggish-informal style post on information that could be time sensitive for some of their users since they are in the process of writing a more formal and lengthy review.

As someone who owns both an XBox 360 and PS3, this sort of post is much appreciated. I usually go for the 360 version as I like my cheevos and have more friends with a 360, but it's still good to get the comparison just in case one version is vastly superior performance-wise.

I like the disclaimer:"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage."

Ars writers are Xbox fanbois. Fanbois don't provide evidence, they just write tr0ll articles: "OMG, MS is better than sony!!!!!!!!!!!! PS3 version of game is teh sux0rs, get XBOX version !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!1111

That's funny. I always got the impression that Ars reviewers are pro-Sony or Nintendo.

Thanks for the quick update. Often one has to wait till Digital Foundry does their full Face-Off before getting feedback like this. (For those wanting captures and screenshots, that's where to find them (http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?pl ... e=face-off) .... but they often come out weeks or months after the release....)

Even though I LOVE that site, whats the point anymore? Other than FF XIII how many multi-plat games have looked/played better on PS3? Sure almost all sony's exclusives look better than anything that came out on the box, but comparing 3rd party multi-plat titles..... come on

Generally I take Ars writers at their word for many things, but with this, I am disappointed."We didn't want to take the time."

Please. Don't bother making an article if you don't want to take the time. This is more akin to a blog post on a personal website than an article on a technology and science news website.

Back up your claims with some kind of evidence or I (and I'm sure many others) will dismiss them as viewer bias.

There are people who can't wait for the final review. Most of us already know that the game is solid. And this blurb actually helps me to get the 360 over PS3 so I don't know if this is a bad thing. I like it.

Even though I LOVE that site, whats the point anymore? Other than FF XIII how many multi-plat games have looked/played better on PS3? Sure almost all sony's exclusives look better than anything that came out on the box, but comparing 3rd party multi-plat titles..... come on

I'd point out Burnout Paradise, R*'s own Grand Theft Auto IV, and some of EA's recent titles... although very rarely is the difference one way or the other noticeable, or does it adversely affect play. (Although I will point out GTA4 is one where certain things look better on either console, my own subjective look has been that it looks marginally better on PS3, but understand the arguments for the 360 version of it as well.)

I have both a 360 and a PS3, although I get most of my multiplatform games on the PS3 unless there are glaring issues on that platform. As an old die-hard PC gamer, I'm not subscribing to Xbox Live Gold on principle, and taking out online play (even though I don't use it much) kinda gimps the experience for me. (That being said, there's enough exclusives on either platform to keep me happy with owning both boxes.)

Thanks for the quick update. Often one has to wait till Digital Foundry does their full Face-Off before getting feedback like this. (For those wanting captures and screenshots, that's where to find them (http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?pl ... e=face-off) .... but they often come out weeks or months after the release....)

Even though I LOVE that site, whats the point anymore? Other than FF XIII how many multi-plat games have looked/played better on PS3? Sure almost all sony's exclusives look better than anything that came out on the box, but comparing 3rd party multi-plat titles..... come on

Sony basically has more dedicated console developers who can work magic out of PS3. Microsoft camp is a bit different story. But I think I say about 90% of games out there today look better on 360 than PS3 and you can't really compare the console exclusive titles b/c you don't have them on both platforms. I do have both platforms, but I do often pick 360 version of multiplatform titles even they don't look good on 360 (e.g. Borderland comes to my mind...) because I know more people on XBL and have better experience on XBL than PSN (of course this is all subjective...).

Generally I take Ars writers at their word for many things, but with this, I am disappointed... Back up your claims with some kind of evidence or I (and I'm sure many others) will dismiss them as viewer bias.

There are people who can't wait for the final review. Most of us already know that the game is solid. And this blurb actually helps me to get the 360 over PS3 so I don't know if this is a bad thing. I like it.

But if "this blurb" was unfounded, you've just been easily misguided. (the lack of screenshots makes it hard to tell)

But overall I trust Ars. That, coupled with the disturbing trend of "the 360 version looks better than the PS3 version" we see everywhere else makes it pretty believable. Those in charge of PS3 ports need to know what people are saying, if ever there's to be improvement.

Oher than FF XIII how many multi-plat games have looked/played better on PS3? Sure almost all sony's exclusives look better than anything that came out on the box, but comparing 3rd party multi-plat titles..... come on

Actually there are many examples where the PS3 version outshines the 360, I'm sure there are lists out there -- FF as you mentioned comes to mind, Burnout Paradise, Devil May Cry 4, Arkham Asylum. Plus the online integration for Modern Warfare is considered better on the Sony box.

I like these pieces. The disclaimer makes it clear this is subjective, so it can be taken with a grain of sale. I own both consoles and see advantages of each online - usually more people online with 360, vs free online with PS3.

As for graphics, early on it was much harder for multiplatform PS3 development to get parity with 360 versions because of the "challenges" of the PS3 architecture. Nowadays the difference is much less. And yes, development frequently is done primarily on 360, while it's "made to work" on PS3 with extra done to regain performance (and this is from a game developer).